Protests Grow at Katie Hopkins Migrants are “Cockroaches” Column.

This is how Rwandan local radio incited the Hutus to violence:
‘You have to kill the Tutsis, they’re cockroaches.’
‘All those who are listening, rise so we can fight for our Rwanda. Fight with the weapons you have at your disposal: those who have arrows, with arrows, those who have spears, with spears. We must all fight.’
‘We must all fight the Tutsis. We must finish with them, exterminate them, sweep them from the whole country. There must be no refuge for them.’
‘They must be exterminated. There is no other way.’

Katie Hopkins inspired the wrath of thousands when she described migrants desperate to reach Britain following humanitarian disasters in their own countries as “feral humans” and suggested the government deploy “gunships” to stop them landing on shore.

Her column for The Sun, in which she further labelled refugees “cockroaches”, became the subject of heated debate over whether the language she used – and the tabloid published – broke editorial guidelines.

I have no interest in the personality of that exoskeleton of solidified bile that is Katie Hopkins. None. But as dead bodies are taken out of the sea, destined for unmarked graves, we might ask how the language she speaks, and the flaunting of murderous wishes towards people who have nothing but the clothes they are found in, has become so mainstream.

To see the vocabulary of genocide casually used by Hopkins in her Sun column has disgusted many, but it does not come out of nowhere. The “debate” around immigration is rarely a debate at all; it has become a void which people fill with more and more extreme and disconnected statements.

Those who preach “honesty” – Nigel Farage staring down the camera, telling us that we at home are thinking what he is thinking, that unlike other politicians he will “tell it as it is” – are lying. The far right’s fantasy of pulling up the drawbridge to stop this great flow of desperate humanity in transit is just that: a fantasy. The politician who promises control of all borders, and pledges to further strengthen that control by withdrawing further from Europe, is selling a simplistic idea. This idea is now indeed itself Europe-wide, as the toxic language around immigration has moved from the margin into the mainstream.

13 Responses

When Marx wrote the 18th Brumaire he never said the farce could not be simulaneously complete tragedy. We seem to be sleepwalking through a repeat showing of the 30s, with the exception of the lack of a strong, combative workers movement.

i agree with the above, even you Sue R. But why do you and Rosie always descend to vulgarity? AWL women, eh? They all dream o’ Galloway.

Katie Hopkins is a cockroach, and it is the Sun that deserves to drown at sea.
Guardianista’s such as Suzanne Moore and other establishment left commentators sometimes do get it right, but they’re cockroaches too in a way.

society is crawling with cockroaches everywhere. Katie is not the worse. She is more honest than most. I’m sure others feel the same, basically they are afraid of boatloads coming to Europe; they dont want it. shutting her and falange up will not stop this sentiment. after all, isn;t your site somewhat worried about what big islamic communities will mean in europe? if more africans come, from islamic countries, then they will add to the growing Islamic community in the UK, which will mean more Islamic politics in the UK. this will mean that Galloway will be an MP forever, and his voter base can only get stronger. that is a partial consequence of more and more immigration.

I think the Left has a major problem when it comes to a coherent policy on immigration. I just had a look at what some of the different Parties have to say –

Respect –

“Respect is in favour of a balanced and fair immigration policy. We are in favour of an EU Referendum, in which we would campaign to remain a part of Europe. Until then, we wholeheartedly welcome all EU migrants who seek to work hard in Britain, just as many British people work abroad.

Respect is in favour of a colour-blind points-based immigration system which is weighted in favour of those coming from Commonwealth countries to which we owe a historic debt.”

“We staunchly oppose racism. We defend the right to asylum, and argue for the end of repressive measures like detention centres.

At the same time, given the outlook of the majority of the working class, we cannot put forward a bald slogan of ‘open borders’ or ‘no immigration controls’, which would be a barrier to convincing workers of a socialist programme, both on immigration and other issues.”

“MG410 We will aim to ensure that UK immigration control takes place primarily at ports of entry so that no resident is required to carry proof of residence.

MG411 We will implement a visibly independent appeal process for Immigration decisions.

MG417 We will undertake a thorough review of UK Immigration Practices and the UK Immigration Service to ensure that racist features are removed and immigration officers receive sufficient suitable training. We will encourage greater ethnic minority participation in the Immigration Service.”

“We believe that it is in the interests of the working class as a whole, migrant and non-migrant, in Britain and internationally, to have equal rights to move across borders. We defend freedom of movement, including the existing EU rights on this issue.

Immigration controls divide and weaken the working class and are therefore against the interests of all workers. There can be no ‘fair’ or ‘non-racist’ immigration controls.”

So, apart from the SWP and Left Unity, all the Parties who claim or are seen by many to be on the Left in the General Election favour immigration controls of one sort or another. And even the SWP are part of a coalition (TUSC) who do not have a programme of opposition to all immigration controls. I guess the SWP where they have candidates will promote SWP policies on this and other matters. The Socialist Party may(?) be opposed to them but they don’t want to tell people. The CPB and the Greens state their opposition to “racist immigration controls” but stop short of total opposition to “all immigration controls”. So, they must be in favour of some, it’s just not very clear.

I don’t know the answer. If Labour were to stand on a “No to all immigration controls” platform, they would be hammered at this election. Most of the people reading this blog will probably hate Labour’s immigration mug but the statement on it “Controls on Immigration” is, to varying degrees, shared by most of the Left Parties standing.

Well, redkorat, stating “all immigration controls are racist” means you are saying that the majority of the Left Parties (including Labour) in this election are racist. Are all their supporters/voters racist too?

All the time there are states, then they will seek to control migration, citizenship rights and duties and all that. That may well be racist. But so what? If anyone has a grand plan to abolish all states around the world simultaneously, please set it out here and we can consider it.

Are their supporters racist too? If they support immigration controls they are. As to who to vote for, I vote for the social democratic party of which I’m a member, while agitating to change its terrible policies in this (and other) respects.

Re immigration controls: if you don’t have any immigration controls at all, then in due course you will have to say goodbye to the welfare state. It is a form of collective insurance, and can only work on the basis of most people paying in as much or more than they get out of it. That requires a basically stable population. It can’t work on a basis of having increasing numbers using it who have not paid into it. It can take a certain amount of that, but not increasing margins.

That is leaving aside matters such as

1. The government’s duty to protect its people, e.g. from criminals from abroad.
2. infrastructure, sustainability and environmental matters.

The UK is the 4th most densely populated country on earth, The current population is too large to be sustainable and we would better operating at around 40 million. However, we are where we are. About the only honest argument for significantly increasing immigration, let alone throwing the doors entirely open is, “Well I’m completely stupid and I would like to see this country become overcrowded and unsustainable, with the accompanying diminishing quality of life for all.”